NYT: professional moms who opted out of work after kids are now opting back in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.

I took 3 months off and when I came back they had given my job to somebody else. They gave me an "equivalent" job which means I made the same money with the same job title. But I had a different boss, locations, job duties, career track...

They could not just let my job sit for 3 months. They also could not just take away the job from the the person that was doing my job for 3 months.

While this never happens to the man that has the stroke or heart attack I do understand it is a balancing act.

I think it would have been arrogant just to expect to walk into my old position as if the world had stopped for 3 months.

It is a shame that this isn't possible, because it is exactly what is successfully practiced in other countries, such as Germany, where women can take up to 2 years off and have their job guaranteed. In the meantime, someone else is hired with a contract limited to that time to fill in for her. That way, mothers (and maybe fathers, too) can stay home without tolling the death knell for their career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

3) Special needs child(ren)

All the SAHM in my acquaintance meet at least 2 out of 3 factors on this list and some all three. They all had the same type of high powered careers mentioned in the article. Can't fault them for doing what works best for their family.

Same here. In my "circle", both spouses working is the standard and having a sahp (usually mom) happens when 'the standard' doesn't work for the family. Sometimes one of the spouses can work out a part time arrangement- but that is rarer than one staying home fulltime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

So her priority was to stay home with her baby 7 years ago. If she applies for a FT job ow, is qualified and willing to do everything the job requires, how is this not just wanting to punish another woman who made different choices than you? Clearly, her priority now is to get a job.

[Anonymous]

A few generations before the opt out generation that now wants back in were the Real Housewives of the Cold War.
The mid-century housewife knew in her heart - because all the magazines confirmed it to be so- that love, marriage and children was The career for women. My own mother Betty would follow in the footsteps of another Betty, Betty Crocker, seemingly satisfied in her role as housewife and mother. But in the fall of 1960 another magazine article appeared in Good Housekeeping questioning the role of women. It wouldn't be until 1963 when the article's author Betty Friedan's book the Feminine Mystique appeared.The problem that had no name was so unfathomable to many homemakers at the time no one even thought they had a problem. It was buried as deeply as our missiles underground and would cause the same explosion when they were released. For a look at the real housewives of the Cold War visit

http://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2013/03/07/the-real-housewives-of-the-cold-war/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that once you choose to stay home for awhile you should be expected to never work again. Are women who stay home for awhile to care for their children just magically supposed to be independently wealthy? Why is it unfair to the people who didn't take time off that people who did want to have jobs again at some point? Why does someone who has shown their "priorities to be elsewhere" never get a chance to modify her priorities once again when she is at a different stage of her life?

What are you talking about? Where is this "never" bullshit coming from? You sound like you lack the ability to comprehend what this issue is really about: women who leave can't get back in at the level at which they left and often have to reenter the workforce at a lower level and for less pay. There's no "never" involved.

Agreed. You make no sense. Modified priorities will likely mean modified earning potential. Modified, not eliminated. Choices and consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

So her priority was to stay home with her baby 7 years ago. If she applies for a FT job ow, is qualified and willing to do everything the job requires, how is this not just wanting to punish another woman who made different choices than you? Clearly, her priority now is to get a job.

This has been answered many times on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?

That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?

Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.

I took 3 months off and when I came back they had given my job to somebody else. They gave me an "equivalent" job which means I made the same money with the same job title. But I had a different boss, locations, job duties, career track...

They could not just let my job sit for 3 months. They also could not just take away the job from the the person that was doing my job for 3 months.

While this never happens to the man that has the stroke or heart attack I do understand it is a balancing act.

I think it would have been arrogant just to expect to walk into my old position as if the world had stopped for 3 months.

It is a shame that this isn't possible, because it is exactly what is successfully practiced in other countries, such as Germany, where women can take up to 2 years off and have their job guaranteed. In the meantime, someone else is hired with a contract limited to that time to fill in for her. That way, mothers (and maybe fathers, too) can stay home without tolling the death knell for their career.

I'd be interested to know more about these contract workers. What kinds of benefits do they get (i.e., up to 2 years off)? What about pay? Are they desperately trying to get one of these permanent guaranteed jobs? Why would someone choose to work on the contracts vs holding a permanent guaranteed job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:bout: women who leave can't get back in at the level at which they left and often have to reenter the workforce at a lower level and for less pay. There's no "never" involved.

Agreed. You make no sense. Modified priorities will likely mean modified earning potential. Modified, not eliminated. Choices and consequences.

Prioritize your children at the expense of neglecting your career and you will have less earning power.

Prioritize your career at the expense of neglecting your children, and you will have higher earning power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

3) Special needs child(ren)

All the SAHM in my acquaintance meet at least 2 out of 3 factors on this list and some all three. They all had the same type of high powered careers mentioned in the article. Can't fault them for doing what works best for their family.

Same here. In my "circle", both spouses working is the standard and having a sahp (usually mom) happens when 'the standard' doesn't work for the family. Sometimes one of the spouses can work out a part time arrangement- but that is rarer than one staying home fulltime.

I don't think it's acceptable for the husband (in many cases) to decide to take on a high-powered job that does not allow any balance that permits him to share the child care duties with a working spouse. A unilateral decision essentially forces the wife to have to give up her career. I have told DH repeatedly that I would never support his return to BigLaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?

That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?

Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.



Excellent point. Thank you for exposing the hypocrisy and bias in these discussions.

That said, in a competitive situation, I think it is inevitable that an equally qualified person who has not taken time off will have an edge. Because of course an employer prefers to hire someone who will put work before their family, or at least never voluntarily prioritize the latter.

[Anonymous]

Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?

Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.

Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

We aren't supposed to believe that, but we actually do believe that. Because if we didn't believe that, we would have things like paid maternity and paternity leave, paid sick days, and high-quality subsidized day care and preschool.

What we actually believe: If you took time off from work to stay at home with the children, that shows that it is possible for you to think that work is not your first priority, and a good employee's first priority is always work.

What we also actually believe: A good mother's first priority is always her children.

Therefore: It is not possible to be a good employee and a good mother.

It's rubbish, and it has to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.

If your DH is a partner, I very much doubt it will hurt your finances much to pay $17/hr for backup childcare a few days every school year.

Clearly, you have no idea about the state of law firms do you? The anxiety, stress and uncertainty has been a awful and there is no end in sight. And, by the way, where are these magical child care providers who will swoop in every other week to provide care? My point is that a part-time salary will not cover the cost of childcare. A full-time job will ultimately put further stress on our kids and marriage with a very few benefits. So until there are larger policy decisions made about how we can make jobs scalable to provide quality of life issues, then everyone loses. Employers lose highly skilled labor, families lose income and the economy continues to teeter on the brink of recession.

On the contrary, my DH is a senior associate at a mid-size firm. Unlike you, I continued to work because of the uncertainty (which seems like a better option than finding excuses not to work, which is what it sounds like you are doing). I'll bet DH and my incomes combined do not equal your husband's, and yet, here we are, paying for full-time childcare! So I literally have no idea how your family cannot afford $17/hr for backup care. Or you could take vacation days when your children are off school. Or find a part-time job with flexibility for the days you work so you're at home. Or a WAH full-time career (which is what I have, btw).

And many jobs now offer intermittent childcare as a benefit (for emergencies or for families that have kids in school and only need a few days off here and there).

Seriously, are you using 10 school vacation days a year as an excuse to never rejoin the workforce? Because it sounds like, from your anxiety over your husband's job, you'd feel better returning to paid work. LOTS of families make those school vacations work. Seriously, just...mind blown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

We aren't supposed to believe that, but we actually do believe that. Because if we didn't believe that, we would have things like paid maternity and paternity leave, paid sick days, and high-quality subsidized day care and preschool.

What we actually believe: If you took time off from work to stay at home with the children, that shows that it is possible for you to think that work is not your first priority, and a good employee's first priority is always work.

What we also actually believe: A good mother's first priority is always her children.

Therefore: It is not possible to be a good employee and a good mother.

It's rubbish, and it has to stop.

Please, it doesn't matter what we believe. It only matters what corporations "believe" -- and what they value. Until huge corporations care about families (hint: it will be never unless it impacts their bottom line), things will not change.